Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This action is responsive to the application 18/675,668 filed on May 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande et al. (US 2018/0183596) hereinafter “Deshpande”.
Claim 1
Deshpande teaches a network comprising at least one host processor of a host node [i.e. a processor 1502 of a sender device (e.g. computing device)] to discover peer nodes in the network [i.e. a system provides peer-to-peer discovery for data connection and transfer purposes, the system comprises a plurality of devices as peer nodes in the network 108; a sender device that can validate a connection request sent from a receiver device (e.g. discover the receiver device)] (Deshpande, fig. 15; 0003, 0047), the at least one host processor to communicate a group identifier (ID) based in part on a secret to further nodes in the network [i.e. the sender device sends a connection provisioning message, which includes a group name/a cluster ID (e.g. connection info in table 3-page 8), that is in part on the secret of key, to the receiver device] (Deshpande, 0070, 0086), wherein a subset of the nodes identify as part of a community within the network based in part on the group ID [i.e. a group of user forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); and the group of user can be identified in the group name/the cluster ID] (Deshpande, table 3; 0033-0034, 0037), wherein the at least one host processor is further to use a key, based in part on the secret, with at least one node of the first subset of the nodes [i.e. a client-server (e.g. sender-receiver) have a shared master secret that can be used to derive key which is used by the sender device in part of peer-to-peer discovery with the receiver device of the group of users (e.g. family or workplace)] (Deshpande, 0083-0086), and wherein the host node and the at least one node are to validate as the peer nodes within the network based in part on being associated with the key [i.e. the sender device and the server validate the receiver as peer node within the network based on the associated/provided key] (Deshpande, 0078-0086).
Claim 2
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, wherein the host node and the at least one node of the subset of the nodes perform a client-server exchange using mutual Transport Layer Security (mTLS) and using the key to validate as the peer nodes [i.e. the sender device and receiver device perform the client-server exchange using mTLS handshake] (Deshpande, 0080, 0084).
Claim 4
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, wherein the group ID for the community is derived from the secret using a hash algorithm and wherein the secret is a user provided secret for the host node and the at least one node of the subset of the nodes in the network [i.e. a hash value, which might generated by a hash algorithm, that is used by the sender device to identify the receiver device; and the shared master secret is used to derive key for the sender and receiver devices in the network] (Deshpande, 0085-0086, 0088).
Claim 5
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, wherein the secret is generated autonomously by different processors installed therein and wherein the different processors comprise the at least one host processor and a further processor of the at least one node which together form all or part of the peer nodes [i.e. the group of user devices (e.g. sender devices, receiver devices) forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); and each of sender/receive devices comprises processors that generate the shared master secret] (Deshpande, 0033-0034, 0037, 0084-0086).
Claim 6
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, wherein the host node and the at least one node in the peer nodes generate and retain an address table of network addresses associated with the peer nodes based in part on a secure connection established, using the key, between the host node and the at least one node [i.e. the sender and receiver devices (peer nodes) generates and retains a table which contains IP address of the plurality of peer/devices in the network; and establishing a secure connection between the sender and receiver devices] (Deshpande, table 3, page 8, 0084-0086).
Claim 8
Deshpande teaches two or more circuits to be associated as peer nodes in a network [i.e. a system provides peer-to-peer discovery for data connection and transfer purposes, the system comprises at least two devices as peer nodes in the network 108; a sender device and a receiver device] (Deshpande, fig. 15; 0003, 0047) using a group identifier (ID) and a key which are both based in part on a secret [i.e. a group name/a cluster ID is included in a connection provisioning message (e.g. connection info in table 3-page 8), that is in part on the secret of a key] (Deshpande, 0070, 0086), wherein a subset of nodes that include the two or more circuits first identify as part of a community within the network based in part on the group ID [i.e. a group of user forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); and the group of user can be identified in the group name/the cluster ID] (Deshpande, table 3; 0033-0034, 0037), and wherein the two or more circuits are further to use the key within the subset of the nodes to validate as the peer nodes within the network [i.e. the sender device and the server validate the receiver as peer node within the network based on the associated/provided key] (Deshpande, 0078-0086).
Claim 12
Deshpande teaches the two or more circuits of claim 8, wherein the two or more circuits are comprised in different processors and wherein the secret is a generated autonomously by the different processors [i.e. the group of user devices (e.g. sender devices, receiver devices) forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); and each of sender/receive devices comprises processors that generate the shared master secret] (Deshpande, 0033-0034, 0037, 0084-0086).
Claim 15
Deshpande teaches a method to discover peer nodes in a network [i.e. a system provides peer-to-peer discovery for data connection and transfer purposes, the system comprises a plurality of devices as peer nodes in the network 108; a sender device that can validate a connection request sent from a receiver device (e.g. discover the receiver device)] (Deshpande, fig. 15; 0003, 0047), comprising: communicating a group identifier (ID) which is based in part on a secret from a host processor of a host node to further nodes in the network [i.e. the sender device sends a connection provisioning message, which includes a group name/a cluster ID (e.g. connection info in table 3-page 8), that is in part on the secret of key, to the receiver device] (Deshpande, 0070, 0086); receiving, in the host processor, an indication of a subset of the nodes identifying as part of a community within the network, based in part on the group ID [i.e. a group of user forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); and the group of user can be identified in the group name/the cluster ID] (Deshpande, table 3; 0033-0034, 0037); and using a key which is based in part on the secret, by the host node and at least one node of the subset of the nodes to form the peer nodes within the network [i.e. a client-server (e.g. sender-receiver) have a shared master secret that can be used to derive key which is used by the sender device in part of peer-to-peer discovery with the receiver device of the group of users (e.g. family or workplace); and the sender device and the server validate the receiver as peer node within the network by using the associated/provided key] (Deshpande, 0078-0086).
Claim 18
Deshpande teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the group ID for the community is derived from the secret, wherein the secret is a user provided secret for the host node and the at least one node of the subset of the nodes in the network or is generated autonomously by different processors, and wherein the different processors comprise the host processor and a further processor of the at least one node which together form all or part of the peer nodes [i.e. the shared master secret is used to derive key for the sender and receiver devices in the network; the group of user devices (e.g. sender devices, receiver devices) forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers)] (Deshpande, 0033-0034, 0037, 0084-0088).
Claims 9, 11, 13 do not teach or define any new limitation other than above claims 2, 4, 6. Therefore, claims 9, 11, 13 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 16, 19 do not teach or define any new limitation other than above claims 2, 6. Therefore, claims 16, 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Ghosh et al. (US 7,796,593) hereinafter “Ghosh”
Claim 3
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, wherein and a community ID is derived from the secret for the subset of the nodes [i.e. the shared master secret is used to derive a transfer ID for the sender and receiver devices in the network] (Deshpande, 0084-0086).
Deshpande fails to teach the network is associated with Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).
However, in an analogous art, Ghosh teaches the network is associated with Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [i.e. the SP network 14 is associated with auto-discovery feature of routing protocol, such as BGP] (Ghosh, col. 7, lines 6-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deshpande to include the teachings of Ghosh of the network is associated with BGP. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide techniques for flooding and routing traffic according to groups of communicating data within computer network (Ghosh, col. 1, lines 10-11).
Claim 7
Deshpande teaches the network of claim 1, further comprising at least one network device, the at least one network device comprising a table 3 which is updated to represent that the subset of the nodes is part of the community and that the host node and the at least one node are potential ones of the peer nodes [i.e. the group of user devices (e.g. sender devices, receiver devices) forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); a device comprises a table 3 which includes a connection info, keys are updated for performing peer-to-peer connection and data transfer] (Deshpande, table 3-page8, 0083-0086).
Deshpande fails to teach a routing table.
However, in an analogous art, Ghosh teaches a routing table [i.e. routing engine maintains routing tables, which executes routing protocol and controls user access to routing engine] (Ghosh, col. 8, lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deshpande to include the teachings of Ghosh of a routing table. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide techniques for flooding and routing traffic according to groups of communicating data within computer network (Ghosh, col. 1, lines 10-11).
Claim 20
Deshpande teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: communicating between the host node and the further nodes using at least one network device; and updating a table 3 in the at least one network device to represent that the subset of the nodes is part of the community and that the host note and the at least one node are potential ones of the peer nodes [i.e. the group of user devices (e.g. sender devices, receiver devices) forming as the peer-to-peer data sharing in a family, workplace, community (w/friends, family, co-workers); a device comprises a table 3 which includes a connection info, keys are updated for performing peer-to-peer connection and data transfer] (Deshpande, table 3-page8, 0083-0086).
Deshpande fails to teach a routing table.
However, in an analogous art, Ghosh teaches a routing table [i.e. routing engine maintains routing tables, which executes routing protocol and controls user access to routing engine] (Ghosh, col. 8, lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deshpande to include the teachings of Ghosh of a routing table. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide techniques for flooding and routing traffic according to groups of communicating data within computer network (Ghosh, col. 1, lines 10-11).
Claims 10, 14 do not teach or define any new limitation other than above claims 3, 7. Therefore, claims 10, 14 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitation other than above claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see PTO-892).
US 2023/0239235 issued to HE et al., teaches preventing transient loops between multi-home peer provider edges in an ethernet virtual private network.
US 2014/0010108 issued to Tavildar et al., teaches enabling relay assisted peer discovery for supporting peer-to-peer communication.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4242. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571)272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH CHAU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459